Hot Topics:

Letters: April 12

Las Cruces Sun-News

Posted:
04/12/2014 01:00:00 AM MDT

Thanks for no vote on TNR for feral cats

I can't resist responding to the feral cat proposal that was printed in the Sun-News on Tuesday. TNR — trap, neuter, release — of feral cats is no help for our wild birds. Once a bird is caught by a cat, even though it may escape before the cat bites it or torments it, it does not survive. I am told that cat saliva is toxic to birds and in my experience in trying to rehabilitate these unfortunate birds, the theory must be correct.

These birds usually do not survive after being in a cat's mouth — even though no puncture wounds are present. My thanks goes out to our City Council, which voted "nay" to TNR.

If people would keep their pet cats indoors, they make loving pets and will adjust to being a "house cat." I speak from experience! Thank you, City Council, for voting "No" on TNR.

Geri Tillett, Las Cruces

Let locals vote on monument proposal

I am tired of this so-called monument and how much it's going to help everyone. The Las Cruces Sun-News prints huge amounts of one side of the story. If you read these stories you will notice they have a common core -- Rep. Steve Pearce is a bad guy for only wanting to do the Organ Mountains.

House Bill 995 is a no-nonsense bill that puts the decision in our hands, where it belongs.

Advertisement

Most of the land they want to protect is already protected by federal agencies. Many other areas have signs designating it as wilderness study areas, and you can't access it unless you're on foot. Other areas have grown in so much that they don't have people going to them and the old roads are now non-existent.

Not many years ago, NMSU regents put over 50 percent of the Dona Ana Mountains off limits to all of us. That was prime hunting area. They used the excuse that someone was shooting at their equipment or shooting over the heads of students.

Grabbing land is taking another freedom from us; not being able to go where you please, when you please. Ninety-nine percent of hikers and hunters are conservationists and careful individuals who already protect our land.

I have lived here 29 years and have visited most of the petroglyphs, Indian ruins, old stagecoach lines and adobe ruins. I have never seen signs of misuse, just curious, well-meaning people who want to see these sight like I did -- without a crowd. The county could take care of the Organ Mountains (they should never have allowed building east of Baylor Canyon Road) if they wanted to. Let me make up my own mind and vote on what I want. That is the American way.

Bill Shipton, Las Cruces

Conspicuous consumption for rich: roads and bridges

As a member of the 99 percent, I want to make known my views regarding the affluent who comprise one percent of all Americans, but control 35 percent of our national wealth.

I don't envy or resent them, and certainly don't want to get rid of them. Like the poor, they'll always be with us. Let's find a way to satisfy their need to be filthy rich, yet be a credit to the broader community. In the manner of Adam Smith, I want to convert their private greed to the public good.

I would argue that the public good should directly benefit all Americans, the One Percent included. Think, for example, of our national system of transportation. The tragic bridge collapse several years ago in Minneapolis should prompt the repair or replacement of hundreds of such structures across America.

But what would motivate the One Percent to invest their wealth in such a project?

I'm with Thorstein Veblen, the noted 19th century economist who argued the drive for wealth is motivated by the desire to demonstrate social status through "conspicuous consumption." There is only so much foie gras and expensive wine the rich can consume. All that remains of their wealth beyond their needs should be available for investment.

By using the Forbes magazine list of American billionaires we may calculate a potential investment in excess of a trillion dollars. Jeff Bezos (of Amazon.com) alone could invest his $20 billion in bridge projects in Washington state, where his company is headquartered. And all of it without a wince of resentment as I've heard him say that money was only a way of keeping score.

Visualize the nation's public needs being more fully met ... more bridges, more mass transit, more alternative energy. More of everything that builds a sustainable American society.